Culture is a process directly aimed at shaping the personality, the active essence of a person. Within the framework of the universal regularity inherent in this process, at each individual stage of development, the system of formation has its own image, inherent only to this stage, determined by specific historical conditions. One of these conditions in modern society is the scientific and technological revolution. See: Culturology. History of world culture. Markova A.N. - M., 2003, p.128.
In world philosophical thought, the idea of a crisis of culture and civilization has been expressed more than once. Criticism of world and European culture is widely known by such different thinkers as, for example, F. Nietzsche and A. Spengler. The thesis about the crisis of culture and civilization as a whole sounded especially sharp at a time when fascism “ruled the ball” in Europe, suppressing freedom, showing the impotence of rationalistic attitudes in the face of force.
After the defeat of fascism, it seemed that the crisis was over. However, with the development of the productive forces of society, it has acquired a new form - an avalanche-like increase in global problems. Today, not only philosophers, scientists, but also politicians of the leading countries of the world are looking for ways out of the critical situation that is developing in the world. At the same time, few people object that the increasing number of global problems and their deepening are a sign of an unprecedented crisis of civilization, rooted in the history of European culture. And this is not a crisis of individual aspects of being, but of the main forms of life of the European industrial and technological civilization, ideologically and worldview ascending to Greek culture and philosophy. At the same time, this is a crisis of modern man in general, the way of his self-realization, forms of rationality, because all countries of the world, all peoples, trying to achieve the standard of living of the industrialized countries of Western Europe and America, strive to follow their path. Modern man does not know another way of successful self-realization. That is why we can say that modern man, his way of being, is in crisis and this is the point at which the interests of philosophy, religion, science and other forms of human exploration of nature and himself, awareness of his present and future "intersect".
Philosophers of the irrationalist direction have long started talking about the crisis of man and culture. They see the meaning of the crisis in the fact that “people have lost faith, both in God and in themselves, in their mind. They no longer know what man is and what his nature is. Some believe that nothing is impossible for a person, and draw hope from this. Others conclude that everything is permitted to a person, and free themselves from every bridle. Still others, finally, come to the conclusion that everything is allowed to be done on a person, in the end - Buchenwald. See: Sidorov E.Yu. Culture of the world and culture of Russia // Polis, 1998. No. 5. P.89.
It should be recognized that the philosophical and ideological criticism of the foundations of modern culture and civilization, which put the possession and conquest of nature at the center of being, began a long time ago. Such criticism arose not because of the awareness of the danger of the ecological situation, global problems, but because philosophers saw the refinement of the personality, which broke ties with being and found itself in captivity of the actual given, existing. Awareness of the personality crisis, a person rushing between knowledge and faith, existence and essence, did not lead, however, to the return of a person to being, stability, integrity.
The most acute question about the future of the current civilization arose before those researchers who for the first time fully realized the depth and scale of the impending ecological crisis. It is environmental issues that show the current level of self-awareness of society and man. At the same time, environmental problems are not the result of individual mistakes and miscalculations, they are rooted in the way of being of modern man. See: Culturology. Ed. G.V.Dracha. - Rostov-on-Don, 2000. P.57. Therefore, global problems do not reflect the crisis of individual forms of his being, but the crisis of modern man as such. Many authors view environmental and other global issues as purely technological or economic.
Today, the core of historical development has become the problem of man in its various dimensions: the relationship of man and nature, man and man, individual and society.
The fact that the origins of the crisis go deep into the history of European culture was not only noted, but also analyzed, in particular, by Russian philosophers, for example, P. Florensky and N. Berdyaev. Florensky noted that already “for a long time, probably since the 16th century, we have ceased to embrace the whole of culture as our own life; For a long time, the individual, with the exception of a very few, cannot rise to the heights of culture without suffering the greatest damage. Under these conditions, "an attempt to get rich is bought by the sacrifice of a whole person." “Life has diverged in different directions, and it is not given to go along them: it is necessary to choose.” See: Mezhuev V.M. Culture as a problem of philosophy // Culture, man and picture of the world. M., 1987. S.332. The consequence of this was the splitting of the personality, the forms of its self-realization into separate types of activity. At the same time, the forms of not only labor activity, but also the activity of the spirit are subjected to splitting. This gives reason to doubt the correctness of the very course of civilization, which brings the fragmentation of the individual to the point of absurdity. Such a course has led to a hopeless situation in which culture no longer unites, but separates people, because it itself turns out to be partial and specialized. And if, according to its very purpose, “culture is an environment that grows and nourishes the personality” and “culture is a language that unites humanity,” then does the current culture fulfill its mission? The depth of the crisis is confirmed by the fact that alienation also affects the individual. "The building of culture is spiritually empty." A person has to live in a world of abstract schemes, "working for a civilization that destroys him and enslaves him." See: Sidorov E.Yu. The culture of the world and the culture of Russia // Polis, 1998. No. 5. P.91.
An analysis of the history of science and philosophy shows that specialization in the natural and social sciences, their differentiation, as well as their integration, are logical and natural in their own way, as they lead deep into the object under study, allowing one to explore the finest processes of natural and social existence. This trend is dangerous, first of all, because specialization is poorly compatible with the need for a holistic perception of the world of culture. In such an atmosphere, a person is formed not by reality in all its fullness and diversity, not by communication with nature, but in many respects by the mass media (media) and popular culture. Man becomes more and more easily controlled and even manipulated.
Western civilization looks at the world in general and at specific objects in particular from the point of view of their usefulness, practical significance, while for a more holistic perception of the world, "useless" things are no less important and valuable. In order for a person to get out of the crisis, he must change the dominant attitude: "the subject is expensive, valuable in itself, because it is useful."
The crisis that modern society is experiencing is undoubtedly related to the problems of economics, ecology, energy, etc. However, since modern economics and politics, energy and ecology are based on scientific programs, all these issues are related to the type of rationality of modern man, the forms of his self-awareness and knowledge. The crisis testifies that the form of rationality dominating in the world is non-universal, that is, it does not meet all the cultural and value orientations necessary for the survival, and even more so the harmonious development of the human community.
An industrial and technical civilization that has achieved significant success is striving to conquer the planet not only technologically, but also ideologically. Meanwhile, the one-sided development of European man, which turns everything that exists not only into an object of rationalization and cognition, but also of possession and consumption, is now obvious to many.
Unfortunately, deep reflections on the danger of rationalizing everything that exists, reducing the mind to scientific rationality, remained at the level of philosophical reflection proper, concern about the growing lack of spirituality, emotional devastation of a person striving to “have” more than “be”. Such a person, as European history has shown, is tragic in that he does not know his lack of spirituality, sees the meaning of life in the material, forgetting about the higher destiny of man.
Naturally, modern European history, having embarked on the path of turning all values eventually into a commodity, had to “pay the price” itself, becoming a victim of its own pragmatism and practicality. The call of philosophers not so much to "have" as to "be" was not heard by the rulers of the leading countries. Moreover, politicians, who have always sought to expand their power, have done everything so that other countries and cultures that did not have time to adopt such an attitude due to their national traditions have no choice and take the path proposed by the new European industrial-technological capitalist civilization.
Wars, revolutions, external catastrophes only revealed from the outside the internal crisis of culture. Until recently, the crisis has manifested itself in a variety of forms, the common denominator of which is lack of spirituality, expressed in the indifference of industrialized countries to poverty in Third World countries, the death of millions of children in them from causes that could have been prevented, etc.
Now the crisis becomes obvious and global, it captures such areas as the environment, food, climate, water, etc., which constitute the natural foundations of the existence of all, shows how dangerous lack of spirituality and indifference leading to the crisis of Man.
Introduction
crisis culture Nietzscheanism
The theme of the test work is "The crisis of modern culture and its spiritual and value foundations."
The crisis of culture is an inevitable companion of cultural genesis. In the development of every culture, a crisis is an obligatory and natural stage. In Western culture, the features of the crisis were already revealed in the 19th century, they manifested themselves even more strongly in the 20th century, which was expressed in two world wars, genocide, repressions, in the apogee of violence and cruelty, in mass local and internal conflicts, in terrorism, intolerance and other negative things. Crisis moments in culture indicate its exhaustion, the need to reassess all values. Sometimes new values are only at the stage of formation, so the crisis can be regarded as a transitional period necessary for the development of new guidelines. In a crisis situation, both prerequisites for the emergence of a different culture and other prerequisites may arise that contribute to the collapse of culture in its former form. The purpose of the test is to study the crisis of modern culture. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to consider the following questions:
1. Value as the "core" of culture.
The human soul is the "battlefield" of good and evil (F. M. Dostoevsky).
The crisis of modern culture and ways to overcome it.
The object of the test is the culture of the XX century.
The subject is the crisis of modern culture.
The theoretical basis for writing the control work was the works of domestic authors, such as Radugin A. A., Solonin Yu. N. and others.
1. The crisis of modern culture and its spiritual and value foundations
.1 Value as the "core" of culture
The core of any culture is made up of values, meanings and symbols, norms related to generic properties, that is, they are common for all times, for all societies.
In the light of the axiological ((grsch. axia "value" + logos "teaching") - the doctrine of values) definition, culture acts as a set of values of any kind, both material and spiritual. In order to better understand the features of this definition, you need to understand what value is. Usually, value is understood as the positive or negative significance of the objects of the surrounding world for a person, group, society as a whole, determined not by their properties in themselves, but by their involvement in the sphere of human life, interests and needs, social relations, as well as the criterion and methods for assessing this significance expressed in principles and norms, ideals, attitudes, goals.
Philosophy defines value as the unity of norm and ideal. There is also a significant amount of subjectivity here, but nevertheless the essence of value is grasped more fully. Understanding the value of cultural phenomena requires highlighting, on the one hand, their real, objective qualities, features of being, and, on the other hand, the attitude towards them.
Value is a characteristic of a person's attitude to an object fixed in the mind of a person. Value for a person are objects that give him positive emotions: pleasure, joy, enjoyment, etc. Therefore, he desires them and longs for them.
The problem of values is quite deeply developed in philosophy and sociology, anthropology and psychology (E. Durkheim<#"justify">The ideational system of culture is based on the principle of supersensibility and superreason of God as the only reality and value. Sorokin refers to this type of culture primarily medieval European culture. In this culture, according to him, "the prevailing customs and customs, way of life, thinking maintained their unity with God as the only and highest goal, as well as their negative or impersonal attitude towards the sensual world, its wealth, joys and values" (Sorokin P Sociodynamics of culture // Man.
P. Sorokin considers the idealistic system of culture as intermediate between ideational and sensual, since the dominant values of this culture are oriented both to Heaven and to Earth. “Its main premise,” writes Sorokin, “was that objective reality is partly supersensible and partly sensual, it encompasses supersensory and superrational aspects, plus the rational, and finally the sensory aspect, forming the unity of this infinite variety.” P. Sorokin refers to this type of culture the Western European culture of the 13th-14th centuries, as well as the ancient Greek culture of the 5th-4th centuries. BC e.
P. Sorokin calls the modern type of culture sensual culture. It is based and united around the dominant principle: objective reality and its meaning are sensible. “Only what we see, hear, touch, feel and perceive through our senses is real and makes sense. Outside this sensible reality, either there is nothing, or there is something that we cannot feel, and this is the equivalent of the unreal, non-existent. The formation of sensory culture begins in the 16th century and reached its climax by the middle of the 20th century. This culture seeks to free itself from religion, morality, and other values of an ideational culture. Her values are centered around everyday life in the real earthly world. Her characters are farmers, workers, housewives and even criminals and lunatics.
The current "sensual" culture, Sorokin believed, is doomed to decline, since it is she who is to blame for the degradation of man, in giving all values a relative character. But from the recognition of the inevitability of the death of this type of culture, it does not at all follow that the end of all human culture is coming. This conclusion is based on the fact that “none of the forms of culture is unlimited in its possibilities, they are always limited. Otherwise, there would be not several forms of one culture, but a single, absolute, including all forms. When the creative forces are exhausted and all their limited possibilities are realized, the corresponding culture and society either become dead and uncreative, or change into a new form that opens up new creative possibilities and values. All the great cultures that have retained their creative potential have undergone just such changes. On the other hand, cultures and societies that did not change form and could not find new ways and means of transmission became inert, dead and unproductive. P. Sorokin believed that culture would not perish as long as a person was alive. Already, the outlines of a new great ideational culture based on the values of altruistic love and the ethics of solidarity have been outlined.
In everyday consciousness, the concept of "value" is usually associated with the evaluation of objects of human activity and social relations in terms of good and evil, truth or untruth, beauty or ugliness, permissible or forbidden, fair or unfair, etc. At the same time, evaluation takes place from the standpoint of one's own culture, and, consequently, one's own system of values is perceived as "genuine", as a starting point for good and bad.
Culturology proceeds from the understanding that the value systems of different cultures are equal, that there is no culture of one's own and another, but there is one's own and another, and that the world is the more stable the more diverse (O. Spengler<#"justify">In his literary works and philosophical reflections, Dostoevsky strives to reveal the dialectics of the human soul. In accordance with the long-standing Orthodox tradition, which comes from ancient Russian philosophy, F.M. Dostoevsky believed that a person has integrity - spiritual, mental and intellectual. But this integrity is internally contradictory. According to Dostoevsky, man is an endless combination of good and evil. And if the source of the origin of good is God, then evil comes from man: "Evil lurks deeper in man than is usually supposed," wrote F.M. Dostoevsky. One of the most important sources of evil in a person is his desire, his will, or, as Dostoevsky wrote, "desire", which dominates the mind: "Desire can, of course, converge over reason ... but very often, and even for the most part, it completely and stubbornly disagrees with mind." "His own, free and free will, his own, even wild, whim", the desire to "live according to his own stupid will" makes a person refuse what "reason and conscience commands him."
This eternal gap between desire and conscience is the expression of the eternal struggle between good and evil in man. And it is no coincidence that all the heroes of Dostoevsky's works are torn between good and evil, and in his novels and short stories there are no absolutely positive heroes.
Throwing the human soul between good and evil, in turn, becomes a source of constant human suffering: "Suffering and pain are always indispensable for a broad consciousness and a deep heart," F.M. Dostoevsky. Consequently, the world is generally based on suffering, and suffering is an obligatory attribute of human existence. F.M. Dostoevsky formulated the idea, brilliant in perspicacity, although paradoxical at a superficial glance, that a person is not at all a prudent being striving for happiness, but an irrational being that has a need for suffering, that suffering is the cause of the emergence of human consciousness. At the same time, a Russian person is able to endure suffering better than a Western one, and at the same time, he is exceptionally sensitive to suffering, he is more compassionate than a Western person.
But why is the world the way it is? And can this situation be changed? Dostoevsky is constantly looking for answers to these questions. And perhaps the deepest reflections on this subject can be found in his novel The Brothers Karamazov, in the famous Legend of the Grand Inquisitor. However, the answer that Dostoevsky offers us in this text is also ambiguous: the higher a person rises with his soul to God, the harder it is for him to live on earth.
And yet F.M. Dostoevsky is looking for a way out. But these paths are not connected with the fact that a person should avoid suffering. A person who has chosen the path of earthly joy inwardly betrays his divine soul, gives himself over to evil. On the contrary, Dostoevsky sees the main way out in enduring suffering with dignity and continuing to seek the truth. And it is quite natural that the question of the meaning of life becomes the most important in the writer's work: "The secret of human existence is not only to live, but in what to live for," wrote F.M. Dostoevsky.
And here Faith becomes the main way of human salvation. According to Dostoevsky's deepest conviction, it is precisely and only God that is perceived in the soul of the Russian people as the Highest Ideal.
Dostoevsky believes in man, that man is capable of overcoming evil in his soul and choosing the path of good. But, knowing the essence of the human soul, knowing the history of mankind, he doubts the power of man to cope with himself. The example of the development of mankind in recent centuries shows Dostoevsky that people follow a simpler, easier and, as a result, the most destructive path - they refuse God and turn man himself into a god. This path, a vivid example of which was Western civilization, with its cult of individualism, rationalism and atheism, establishes on earth the cult of the Man-God, when "man will be exalted by the spirit of divine, titanic pride and the man-god will appear." But for Dostoevsky himself, such a path is the affirmation and spread of evil in man and in society. That is why the Russian thinker was so rigidly opposed to the ideas of socialism that were fashionable at that time, in which Dostoevsky saw the greatest evil: “Socialists want to regenerate a person ... They conclude that by forcibly changing his economic life, the goal will be achieved. But a person will not change from external causes , and not otherwise than from a moral change. It is precisely the striving of the socialists to destroy God and religion, i.e. those forces that are capable of morally transforming the human soul provoked the most severe rebuff from Dostoevsky. After all, by destroying God, the socialists are destroying man himself. The novel "Demons" is dedicated to this, in which he wrote with prophetic bitterness: "Socialism in its essence must be atheism, for it proclaimed, from the very first line, that it is an atheistic institution and intends to settle on the principles of science and reason exclusively."
.3 The cultural crisis of the 20th century and ways to overcome it
Culturology of the twentieth century states the crisis state of culture. Representatives of the most diverse methodological orientations write about the crisis of culture, the creators of both cumulative models of history and culture, and those that are opposite to them.
The twentieth century demonstrated to mankind that culture, as an integrating principle of social development, covers not only the sphere of spiritual, but to an ever greater extent - material production. All the qualities of a technogenic civilization, whose birth was celebrated a little more than three hundred years ago, were able to fully manifest themselves precisely in our century. At this time, civilizational processes were as dynamic as possible and were of decisive importance for culture. According to Ch.P. Snow, “in the 20th century, the integral and organic structure of culture broke into two antagonistic forms” (Snow Ch.P. Two cultures. M., 1973). Between the traditional humanitarian culture of the European West and the new, so-called scientific culture, derived from the scientific and technological progress of the 20th century, a catastrophic gap is growing every year. The enmity of two cultures can lead to the death of mankind.
This conflict most acutely affected the cultural self-determination of a single person. Technogenic civilization could realize its potential only through the complete subordination of the forces of nature to the human mind. This form of interaction is inevitably associated with the wide use of scientific and technological achievements, which helped the contemporary of our century to feel his dominance over nature and at the same time deprived him of the opportunity to feel the joy of harmonious coexistence with it.
Therefore, the problem of the crisis of modern culture cannot be considered without taking into account the contradictions in the relationship between man and machine. It was with this title that in the 1920s N. Berdyaev wrote an article in which he emphasizes that the question of technology today has become a question of the fate of man and the fate of culture. “In an age of lack of faith, in an age of weakening not only the old religious faith, but also the humanistic faith of the 19th century, the only strong faith of modern civilized man remains faith in technology, in its endless development. Technique is the last love of man, and he is ready to change his image under the influence of the object of love.
Machine production has cosmological significance. The realm of technology is a special form of being that has arisen quite recently and forced to reconsider the place and prospects of human existence in the world. The machine - a significant part of culture - in the 20th century masters gigantic territories and takes possession of the masses of people, in contrast to past eras, where cultures covered a small space and a small number of people, built on the principle of "selection of qualities". In the 20th century, everything becomes global, everything spreads to the entire human mass. The will to expansion inevitably calls broad strata of the population back to historical life. This new form of organization of mass life destroys the beauty of the old culture, the old way of life and, depriving the cultural process of originality and individuality, forms a faceless pseudo-culture.
There are a number of reasons that gave rise to a persistent feeling of a cultural crisis in the cultural studies of the 20th century. The main thing is the awareness of new realities: the universal nature of vital processes, the interaction and interdependence of cultural regions, the commonality of human participation in the modern world, i.e. those realities that are the source of civilization and at the same time its consequence. The common destinies of various cultural regions are represented by “catastrophes” that captured not only individual peoples, but the entire European community in the 20th century: world wars, totalitarian regimes, fascist expansion, international terrorism, economic depressions, environmental upheavals, etc. All these processes could not proceed locally without affecting the internal life of other peoples, without violating the style of cultural development. All this, from the point of view of O. Spengler, only proves the fallacy of the evolutionary path of the entire Western civilization.
Crisis phenomena in the cultural practice of Europe in the 20th century, from the point of view of these thinkers, are irreversible. The representative of the so-called second generation of the Frankfurt school, J. Habermas, argues that the modern “late capitalist” state is able to displace crisis phenomena from one sphere of society to another: a political crisis can be forced out into the economic sphere, an economic one into the social sphere, etc. But the area of culture, J. Habermas emphasizes, is the area in relation to which the concept of crisis retains its meaning, where it cannot be “mitigated”, since the sphere of culture is not subject to administrative manipulation carried out by the state. In this case, J. Habermas is talking about genuine culture, informal morality and art, and not about the “mass”, surrogate culture that has flooded the historical space of Europe in this century.
The situation of violation of cultural integrity and rupture of the organic connection of man with the natural foundations of life in the 20th century is interpreted by culturologists as a situation of alienation. Alienation is the process of transforming various forms of human activity and its results into an independent force that dominates it and is hostile to it. The alienating mechanism is associated with a number of manifestations: the impotence of the individual in front of the external forces of life; notion of the absurdity of existence; the loss by people of mutual obligations to observe the social order, as well as the denial of the dominant system of values; feeling of loneliness; the loss by the individual of his "I", the destruction of the authenticity of the personality.
Various aspects of human alienation of the 20th century from cultural forms have been studied by modern cultural studies.
A kind of introduction to the problematic field of the 20th century are some ideas of the philosophers of the previous century - a kind of cultural-theoretical forecast, now largely confirmed by practice.
The "forecasting" of thinkers of the 19th century is associated with a negative attitude towards the fate of European culture, which demonstrated that it itself is a source of alienation of the individual from the true goals of being. A radical turn in the interpretation of culture was indicated in the works of A. Schopenhauer, who questioned the progressive orientation of any rational human activity.
From the point of view of A. Schopenhauer, in the process of a long social evolution, a person has not been able to develop his body to a more perfect one than that of any other animal. In the struggle for his existence, he developed in himself the ability to replace the activity of his own organs with their instruments. By the 19th century, the development of machine production actualized this problem. As a result, A. Schopenhauer believed, the training and improvement of the sense organs turned out to be useless. Reason, therefore, is not a special spiritual force, but the negative result of disconnection from basic acts, which the philosopher called the denial of the "will to live."
The role of Nietzsche in understanding the crisis processes of modern culture is very great. According to T. Lessing, Nietzscheanism is a continuation of the worldview position that pessimistically assesses the future of culture. Forerunners of the Nietzschean cultural philosophy of J.J. Rousseau and L. Tolstoy, disgust for rationalistic forms of culture leads to ascetic and Christian-transcendental ideals. For Nietzsche, it is precisely these values that are the product of a misguided, tired and sick life.
The problem of the crisis of culture as a result of the alienation of man from the results of his activity was developed in a number of philosophical schools of the 20th century. Existential philosophy has put such factors as the absurdity of human existence and the total isolation of man from society (A. Camus, K. Jaspers, M. Heidegger) among the most pressing problems of this century.
The issues of psychological “discontent with culture” and self-alienation of the individual were posed and resolved by representatives of psychoanalytic theory (S. Freud, K. G. Jung, E. Fromm).
Among the researchers of this problem is G. Marcuse, who developed the concept of “one-dimensional man”, who, being included in the consumer race, turns out to be alienated from such social characteristics as a critical attitude towards the existing society, the ability to revolutionary struggle.
1.4 Dialogue of cultures as a means of overcoming their crisis
The crisis features of modern culture have found their most vivid expression in various symptoms of the collapse of social communication skills. This theme has been artistically embodied in contemporary art in various forms (in surrealist painting and poetry, neorealist prose and cinema, "absurdist theater", etc.) by a large circle of authors: T. Williams, S. Dali, I. Bergman, S. Beckett and many others.
The 20th century forced many scholars to view culture as the opposite of civilization. If civilization always strives for a steady movement forward, its path is climbing the ladder of progress, then culture carries out its development, abandoning the unidirectional linear movement forward. Culture does not use the previous spiritual heritage as a springboard for new achievements, for the reason that it cannot refuse in whole or in part from the cultural fund. On the contrary, participation in the various incarnations of tradition is of great importance in the cultural process. Culture can be built only on the basis of spiritual continuity, only taking into account the internal dialogue of cultural types.
Culture is a huge polyphonic space, similar to a work of art. It distinguishes the "voices" of various cultural characters, the significance of which is not diminished by age, nationality, or any other circumstances. The formation of the artistic world of any philosopher or composer, architect or fashion designer always proceeds based on a whole complex of cultural and artistic traditions.
In the current century, it has become clear that the dialogue of cultures implies mutual understanding and communication not only between different cultural formations within large cultural zones, but also requires the spiritual convergence of huge cultural regions that formed their own set of distinctive features at the dawn of civilization.
Dialogue is a question not only of humanitarian contacts of great cultures, but also of a way of introducing a single individual to the spiritual world of these cultural formations. Dialogue as a principle of cultural development allows not only to organically borrow the best from the world heritage, but also forces a person to give his “own” voice, to make a personal rethinking of a “foreign” culture. Only an internal rethinking of cultural values, only an active dialogue with cultural figures makes a person cultural, attached to the great cosmos of culture. The dialogue form allows the ambivalent nature of culture to emerge.
Today, the development of the principle of the dialogue of cultures is a real opportunity to overcome the deepest contradictions of the spiritual crisis, to avoid an ecological impasse and an atomic night. A real example of the consolidation of various cultural worlds is the union that was formed by the end of the 20th century in Europe between European nations. The possibility of a similar union between vast cultural regions can only arise if there is a dialogue that preserves cultural differences in all their richness and diversity and leads to mutual understanding and cultural contacts.
Conclusion
So, we can draw the following conclusions.
In cultural studies, it is difficult to do without the concept of "value", since values form the core of a particular culture. There are many definitions of the concept of "value", we will give the most general one. Value is a generally accepted belief about the goals to which a person should strive, they form the basis of moral principles. A value is a generally recognized norm, formed in a certain culture, setting patterns and standards of behavior, determining a person's behavioral model. According to Dostoevsky, man is an endless combination of good and evil. And if the source of the origin of good is God, then evil comes from man. One of the most important sources of evil in a person is his desires, his will. The tossing of the human soul between good and evil becomes, in turn, a source of constant human suffering. Faith becomes the main way of human salvation. According to Dostoevsky's deepest conviction, it is precisely and only God that is perceived in the soul of the Russian people as the Highest Ideal.
The problem of the crisis of modern culture cannot be considered without taking into account the contradictions between man and machine. The machine - a significant part of culture - in the 20th century is mastering gigantic territories and taking possession of the masses of people, in contrast to past eras. Crisis phenomena in the cultural practice of Europe in the 20th century, from the point of view of these thinkers, are irreversible. The problem of the crisis of culture as a result of the alienation of man from the results of his activity was developed in a number of philosophical schools of the 20th century.
Existential philosophy has put such factors as the absurdity of human existence and the total isolation of man from society among the most pressing problems of this century. The development of the principle of the dialogue of cultures is a real opportunity to overcome the deepest contradictions of the spiritual crisis.
List of sources used
Bystrova A. N. World of Culture (Fundamentals of Culturology). Tutorial. 2nd edition, corrected and enlarged. - M .: Fedor Publishing House
Konyukhov; Novosibirsk: YuKEA Publishing House LLC, 2002.- 712 p.
Pereverzentsev S. V. Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. - Access mode: [#"justify">. Radugin A. A. Culturology. - M.: Center, 2002. - 304 p.
Solonin Yu. N, Kagan Yu. N. Culturology. - M.: Higher education, 2007. - 566 p.
Sundeeva A.V. The problem of the individual and collective crisis in modern culture.// Proceedings of the scientific conference April 11-13, 2000 . St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Philosophical Society, 2000. - S.201-204.
Tutoring
Need help learning a topic?
Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
FEDERAL STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
SIBERIAN ACADEMY OF THE STATESERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT
TEST
discipline: Anti-crisis social management
ON THE TOPIC: Crisis of culture: causes and consequences
Novosibirsk 2009
Introduction 3
1. The essence of culture 5
2. Problems of the Crisis of Culture 6
3. Crisis of culture in modern Russia and ways to overcome it 11
CONCLUSION 16
References 17
Introduction
The experience accumulated by mankind in the course of its socio-cultural history provides invaluable assistance in solving cultural problems at the present stage of the transformation of our society based on the principles of humanism and democracy in the conditions of rapid scientific and technological progress. It should be noted that the problems of culture today are of paramount, in essence, key importance, because culture is a powerful factor in social development. After all, it permeates all aspects of human life - from the foundations of material production and human needs to the greatest manifestations of the human spirit. Culture plays an increasingly important role in solving the long-term program goals of the democratic movement: the formation and strengthening of civil society, the disclosure of human creative abilities, the deepening of democracy, and the building of the rule of law. Culture affects all spheres of social and individual life - work, life, leisure, the area of \u200b\u200bthinking, etc., the way of life of society and the individual. Its significance in the formation and development of a person's lifestyle is manifested through the action of personal-subjective factors (settings of consciousness, spiritual needs, values, etc.) that affect the nature of behavior, the forms and style of people's communication, values, patterns, norms of behavior. The humanistic way of life, oriented not to adaptation to existing conditions, but to their transformation, presupposes a high level of consciousness and culture, enhances their role as regulators of people's behavior and their way of thinking.
Culture acquires social influence, first of all, as a necessary aspect of the activity of a social person, which, by virtue of its nature, involves the organization of joint activities of people, and, consequently, its regulation by certain rules accumulated in sign and symbolic systems, traditions, etc. The very course of reforms, the goal of which is to achieve a qualitatively renewed society, requires an appeal to the colossal cultural potential accumulated by mankind during its existence. The development of the spiritual treasures of the peoples of the world, the careful and, at the same time, appropriate handling of the cultural wealth of previous generations, makes it possible to comprehend the meaning of the forgotten lessons of history, makes it possible to identify living, developing cultural values, without which neither social progress nor self-improvement of the individual is possible.
Since the center of culture is a person with all his needs and concerns, a special place in social life is occupied by the issues of mastering the cultural environment by him, and the problems associated with achieving high quality in the process of creating and perceiving cultural values. The development of the cultural riches of the past performs an integrating function in the life of each society, harmonizes the life of people, awakens in them the need to comprehend the world as a whole. And this is of great importance for the search for common criteria for progress in the conditions of an unstoppable scientific and technological revolution.
With the utmost acuteness, these questions are posed by the very life of our society, guidelines for a qualitatively new state of it lead to a sharp turning point in understanding the traditionalist and innovative trends in social development. They require, on the one hand, a deep assimilation of cultural heritage, an expansion of the exchange of genuine cultural values between peoples, and, on the other hand, the ability to go beyond the usual, but already obsolete ideas, to overcome a number of reactionary traditions that have been formed and planted for centuries, constantly manifesting themselves in the minds of , activities and behavior of people. Knowledge and an understanding of the history of world culture that is adequate to modern times play a significant role in resolving these issues.
1. The essence of culture
Culture (from the Latin cultura - cultivation, upbringing, education, development, veneration), a historically defined level of development of society, the creative forces and abilities of a person, expressed in the types and forms of organizing the life and activities of people, in their relationships, as well as in the material they create and spiritual values.
Cultural education is one of the most important mechanisms that contribute to the self-preservation and self-development of society. Cultural education historically arises in connection with the need to meet the social need to harmonize common and individual interests. Culture ensures the integrity and stability of society, its continuity, development and improvement through the harmonization and humanization of common and individual interests, through ensuring the cultural and spiritual development of its members.
One of the cultural theorists in our country, V.M. Mezhuev wrote:
“The real content of culture is the development of man himself as a social being, the development of his creative forces, relationships, needs, abilities, forms of communication, etc.”
The culture of the late 20th - early 21st centuries is a turning point culture, and not just a new period in its history. This culture is in crisis in the original sense of the word, it would be wrong to see in it only a linear upward movement. The old and the new are not located in the history of culture in an elementary sequence, but act in mutual intersection. In the culture of this period, with extraordinary and in many respects determining power, features are manifested that are inherent precisely and exclusively in the turning point.
Culture is a process directly aimed at shaping the personality, the active essence of a person. Within the framework of the universal regularity inherent in this process, at each individual stage of development, the system of formation has its own image, inherent only to this stage, determined by specific historical conditions. One of these conditions in modern society is the scientific and technological revolution.
2. Problems of the Crisis of Culture
In world philosophical thought, the idea of a crisis of culture and civilization has been expressed more than once. Criticism of world and European culture is widely known by such different thinkers as, for example, F. Nietzsche and A. Spengler. The thesis about the crisis of culture and civilization as a whole sounded especially sharp at a time when fascism “ruled the ball” in Europe, suppressing freedom, showing the impotence of rationalistic attitudes in the face of force.
After the defeat of fascism, it seemed that the crisis was over. However, with the development of the productive forces of society, it has acquired a new form - an avalanche-like increase in global problems. Today, not only philosophers, scientists, but also politicians of the leading countries of the world are looking for ways out of the critical situation that is developing in the world. At the same time, few people object that the increasing number of global problems and their deepening are a sign of an unprecedented crisis of civilization, rooted in the history of European culture. And this is not a crisis of individual aspects of being, but of the main forms of life of the European industrial and technological civilization, ideologically and worldview ascending to Greek culture and philosophy. At the same time, this is a crisis of modern man in general, the way of his self-realization, forms of rationality, because all countries of the world, all peoples, trying to achieve the standard of living of the industrialized countries of Western Europe and America, strive to follow their path. Modern man does not know another way of successful self-realization. That is why we can say that modern man, his way of being, is in crisis and this is the point at which the interests of philosophy, religion, science and other forms of human exploration of nature and himself, awareness of his present and future "intersect".
By the way, philosophers of the irrationalist direction have long started talking about the crisis of man and culture. They see the meaning of the crisis in the fact that “people have lost faith, both in God and in themselves, in their mind. They no longer know what man is and what his nature is. Some believe that nothing is impossible for a person, and draw hope from this. Others conclude that everything is permitted to a person, and free themselves from every bridle. Still others, finally, come to the conclusion that everything is allowed to be done on a person, in the end - Buchenwald.
So, it should be recognized that the philosophical and ideological criticism of the foundations of modern culture, and, by the way, civilization, which put the possession and conquest of nature at the center of being, began a long time ago. Such criticism arose not because of the awareness of the danger of the ecological situation, global problems, but because philosophers saw the refinement of the personality, which broke ties with being and found itself in captivity of the actual given, existing. Awareness of the personality crisis, a person rushing between knowledge and faith, existence and essence, did not lead, however, to the return of a person to being, stability, integrity.
The most acute question about the future of the current civilization arose before those researchers who for the first time fully realized the depth and scale of the impending ecological crisis. It is environmental issues that show the current level of self-awareness of society and man. At the same time, environmental problems are not the result of individual mistakes and miscalculations, they are rooted in the way of being of modern man. Therefore, global problems do not reflect the crisis of individual forms of his being, but the crisis of modern man as such, which should be specially emphasized, because many authors consider environmental and other global problems as purely technological or economic. Today, the core of historical development has become the problem of man in its various dimensions: the relationship of man and nature, man and man, individual and society.
The fact that the origins of the crisis go deep into the history of European culture was not only noted, but also analyzed, in particular, by Russian philosophers, for example, P. Florensky and N. Berdyaev. Florensky noted that already “for a long time, probably since the 16th century, we have ceased to embrace the whole of culture as our own life; For a long time, the individual, with the exception of a very few, cannot rise to the heights of culture without suffering the greatest damage. Under these conditions, "an attempt to get rich is bought by the sacrifice of a whole person." “Life has diverged in different directions, and it is not given to go along them: it is necessary to choose.” The consequence of this was the splitting of the personality, the forms of its self-realization into separate types of activity. At the same time, the forms of not only labor activity, but also the activity of the spirit are subjected to splitting. As Florensky notes: “The content of the science of someone else's specialty has long been inaccessible not only to just a cultured person, but also to a specialist - a neighbor. However, a separate discipline is also inaccessible to a specialist of the same science. All this gives reason to the thinker to doubt the correctness of the very course of civilization, which brings the fragmentation of the individual to the point of absurdity. Such a course, according to Florensky, led to a hopeless situation in which culture no longer unites, but separates people, because it itself turns out to be partial and specialized. And if, according to its very purpose, “culture is an environment that grows and nourishes the personality” and “culture is a language that unites humanity,” then does the current culture fulfill its mission? But if, asks Florensky, “the individual in this environment is starving and suffocating” and we are in “Babylonian confusion of languages, when no one understands anyone and each speech serves only to finally confirm and consolidate mutual alienation,” then does this not indicate dead-end nature of the development of civilization? The depth of the crisis is confirmed by the fact that alienation also affects the individual. "The building of culture is spiritually empty." A person has to live in a world of abstract schemes, "working for a civilization that destroys him and enslaves him."
Everyone who talks about culture must limit the ambiguity of this concept for his own purposes. I understand by culture that perfection of the soul, which it achieves not directly by itself, as happens in religious feeling, in moral purity, in creativity, but in a roundabout way through the formation of the spiritual and historical activity of the genus: the path of the subjective spirit to culture goes through science and forms life, through art and state, profession and knowledge of the world, the path on which he returns to himself, but having reached a greater height of perfection.
Therefore, our actions, which should give us culture, are connected with the form goals and funds. However, this mode of action is split into innumerable separate directions. Life is made up of actions and creations, the common direction of which exists, but can only be known to a small extent.
The discontinuity and doubtfulness connected with this reach their climax due to the fact that the series of means for our final ends, "technique" in the broad sense, is continuously lengthened and condensed. This finite immensity of the series of ends and means creates a phenomenon of tremendous significance, as a result of which some intermediate links in these series turn into final goals for our consciousness: innumerable things present themselves to us while we are striving for it, and much even after we have completed it. achieved, the final satisfaction of our will, while in fact it is only an intermediate point and a means to achieve our real goals. We need this emphasis within our aspirations, because with their vastness and interweaving, we would completely lose our spirit if the impulse
served God knows how far from us the true ultimate goal. The enormous, intense and extensive growth of our technology, which is by no means only technology in the material realm, draws us into a network of means and means of these means, which further and further distances us from our true ultimate goals. This is the enormous inner danger of all highly developed cultures, i.e. eras in which the entire sphere of life is covered with a maximum of means built on top of each other. The elevation of a number of such means to final ends seems to make this proposition psychologically bearable, but in reality makes it even more meaningless.
On the same basis, another internal contradiction of culture develops. Objective formations, in which creative life has found its expression and which are then again perceived by souls and bring culture to them, acquire an independent, determined each time by their actual development conditions. Subjects are drawn into the content and pace of development of industry and science, art and organizations, indifferent or in conflict with the demands that they should have made for the sake of their own improvement, i.e. culture. The objects carried by cultural life and carrying it follow, the more refined and perfect in their way, the more immanent logic, which by no means always corresponds to the development of subjects returning into itself, as the meaning of all formations of culture requires. We are opposed by innumerable objectifications of the spirit, works of art and social norms, institutions and knowledge, like kingdoms governed by their own laws, claiming to become the content and norm of our individual existence, which in essence does not know what to do with them, and often perceives them as a burden and opposing forces.
However, not only this qualitative alienation stands between the objective and subjective aspects of high cultures, but between them there is also a quantitative unlimitedness with which book follows book, discovery after discovery, work of art after work of art - a kind of formal unlimitedness that appears before the individual with claim to be accepted by him. He, however, being determined in his form and limited in his ability to perceive, can satisfy this less and less fully, although all this somehow concerns him.
Thus, a typically problematic situation arises.
modern man - the feeling that he is, as it were, suppressed by this number of elements of culture, since he can neither internally assimilate them, nor simply reject them, since they potentially belong to the sphere of his culture. As a result, what can be called culture of things, left to its own course of development, it acquires an enormous sphere of distribution, as a result of which interests and hopes are increasingly turning in this direction, pushing aside, as it were, the much narrower, much more final task of introducing individual subjects to culture.
These, then, are the two most serious dangers of mature and overripe crops. On the one hand, they consist in the fact that the means of life are superior in their significance to its ends and in this way the multitude of means appropriates the psychological dignity of the final ends; on the other hand, the objective formations of culture acquire an independent development that obeys purely factual norms and thereby become not only deeply alien to subjective culture, but also progress with such speed that it cannot overtake them. To these two main motives and their ramifications, it seems to me, are reduced all those phenomena with which, for a certain time, the feeling of an impending crisis in our culture has been associated. All the race, insatiability and thirst for pleasures of our time are only the consequences and manifestations of the reaction caused by the fact that personal values are sought in an area in which they do not exist at all: the fact that advances in technology are directly evaluated as advances in the field of culture, which in in the realm of the spirit, methods are often regarded as something sacred and considered more important than contents and their results, that the thirst for money far exceeds the thirst for the things they are a way of acquiring - all this testifies to the gradual displacement of ends by means and ways ...
I do not dare to assert with confidence that in the first group of phenomena in this "pathology and culture - in the lag of the improvement of people from the improvement of things - there are signs of a possible cure. This is probably the tragedy of culture, inextricably linked with its essence; for since it means that the development of subjects goes through the development of the world of objects, since the latter is capable of unlimited improvement, acceleration and distribution, while the ability of subjects inevitably remains one-sided and limited, I do not see in principle
opportunities to prevent the occurrence of incoherence, at the same time dissatisfaction and satiety ...
These dangers cited here are combined as a common symptom in the fact that all these areas of culture developed in mutual independence and alienation, until in recent years common common currents again became noticeable. This is the reason for the often emphasized lack of style in our time. For style is always the adherence to a general form, which gives a common character to a number of creations that are different in content. The more the spirit of a people - for the sake of brevity I use this dubious expression - colors in its characteristic unity all the manifestations of its time, the more we see in it a certain style. Therefore, the previous centuries, which were not yet so burdened with the fullness of heterogeneous traditions and possibilities leading in different directions, possessed a greater style than modernity, when in many cases a separate activity is carried out, as it were, in isolation from any other. In this, however, lately, perhaps after Nietzsche there are signs of some change. It seems that the concept life penetrates into the most diverse areas and begins to give a single rhythm to the beating of their pulse ...
We cannot hope for more in the face of the latest paradoxes of our cultural life. They are of such a nature as if they are leading us to a crisis, and thereby to boundless fragmentation and darkness. That means acquire the significance of final ends, and this completely violates the order of inner and practical being; that objective culture develops to such an extent and at such a pace that it more and more overtakes the development of subjective culture, which alone is the meaning of the improvement of all objects; that the separate ramifications of culture are directed in mutual alienation in different directions, that they are all waiting, in fact, the fate of the Tower of Babel, and that their deepest value, which consists precisely in the connection of individual parts, is threatened with destruction - all these are contradictions that are inseparable from the development of culture as such. With their complete succession, they would have brought this development to the point of collapse, if the positive, semantic side of culture had not opposed opposite impulses to them, if from completely unexpected sides the forces that stopped their action had not come, which - often at a high price - for a while restore the outgoing into insignificance and the disintegrating life of culture...
One can, of course, as has been said, define as a principled formula, rising above all individual contents, establishing the fate of a culture that has reached great heights, that culture is a constantly contained crisis. This would mean that it seeks to transform the life from which it arises and to serve which it is intended into something meaningless and contradictory, against which the fundamental, dynamic unity of life constantly rises up, forcing objectivity, alien to life, which takes life away from itself, again surrender to the source of life itself. We stand in this epoch at the pinnacle of history because the disintegration and deviation of cultural existence has reached a certain maximum, against which life revolts in this war with its unifying, simplifying, meaning-focused power. Even if it is no more than a wave in the boundless stream of human life, the friction of its forces has not yet elevated this life to such a height, such a breadth. Shocked, we are faced with such dimensions that take this crisis infinitely far away from the gaze of an individual, making it at the same time close and understandable to us; for in each of us this crisis, whether we realize it or not, is the crisis of our own soul.
In the modern understanding of culture, against the background of the general development of natural science and as a consequence of the development of science and technology, there are ideas about its crisis state. The crisis of culture should be understood as a sharp, abrupt change in its development, a difficult transitional state of culture. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that such shifts in the sphere of culture are a reaction to the development of the socio-economic, political and technical environment. “Each culture,” writes R. Inglegard, “represents the adaptation strategy of its people. In the long term, such strategies tend to be in response to economic, technical and political changes and, as such, cannot remain unchanged for long. New post-industrial wave in the West. Moscow: Academia. - 1999. C - 249-250]. Consequently, it is impossible to correctly understand the crisis of culture without taking into account the crisis that society is experiencing at one time or another in its history.
As society approaches the end of the next and the beginning of the next century, and even more so the millennium, the number of discussions about the crisis of society and even the “end of the world” increases dramatically. Our time is no exception. And not only because this is the time of the change of the millennium, but mainly because rapid and stormy qualitative changes are taking place in society.
There is nothing surprising in the fact that along with the greatest cultural achievements of our time in the development and functioning of culture, there are crisis phenomena that have objective and subjective reasons. These reasons can be classified into reasons caused by technical and technological development, political climate and social conditions of modern society.
The problem of the crisis of modern culture cannot be considered without taking into account the contradictions between man and machine. “Civilization itself has become a machine that does or wants to do everything in the image of a machine.”[ Spengler O. Man and technology // Culturology. XX century: Anthology. -- M., 1995] The material and technical component of human existence develops immeasurably faster than its spiritual component, moral and intellectual qualities of a person. The external aspects of life, the material conditions of this life, developed extensively, while the development of the inner spiritual content lagged behind. I. Kant was already concerned about the contradictory possibilities of theoretical reason, which can go far in its development, ignoring the human world and the consequences of the introduction of technology, which do not take into account the requirements of practical reason, that is, moral consciousness. Because of this, a contradiction arises between the material and spiritual segments of culture.
Today, the development of material culture, in particular the means of informatization, is taking place at an ever-accelerating pace. Thus, the rate of updating information technology is increasing so much that generations of this technology replace each other every 3-5 years. Intellectual assimilation of the consequences of such a rapid development has not kept pace with the growth of information received and processed. This leads to an even greater aggravation of the contradictions between the material and spiritual components of modern culture. Thus, the informatization of society not only changes the world, but also creates new problems in this world.
Qualitative changes in the culture of the information age are associated with the widespread use of information technology and technology in the field of culture. Radio, telephone, cinema, television, multimedia, and finally computers - all this modern technical power to a large extent determines both the content and form of cultural values, as well as their development and the role they play on the social stage. Moreover, modern technology requires the improvement of culture in a number of other important factors of human activity. M. Castells, in this regard, writes that “in order for technological discoveries to spread throughout the economy so that they increase labor productivity by the required amount, it is necessary that culture and social institutions, business organizations and other factors affecting the production process pass through certain major changes" [ Castells M. Information Age: Economics, Society and Culture. - M.: GU VSHCHE. - 2000. From 15.]
The reasons for the crisis of modern culture, caused by rapid scientific and technological progress, the contradictions between the material and spiritual components of culture, intensify their effect in a certain political atmosphere.
To understand the essence of the crisis of culture, one more circumstance, noted at the time by D. Bell, is important. The fact is, he writes, that the development of industry belongs to the control of the community: machine designers must reckon with existing standards, environmental pollution is limited by state sanctions and social movements, price and wages by government measures. At the same time, there are no restrictions in the sphere of spiritual culture. As a result, in the cultural realm, nudity became commonplace on movie screens, pornography in newsstands, sex became the subject of lively discussion in the media. “Almost everything is allowed, writes D. Bell, - the changes are so significant that cultural problems have acquired the significance of political ones”[ Bell D. The Coming Post-Industrial Society. Experience of social forecasting. - M.: Academia - 1999.]. Alternative medicine, divination and prophecy, mysticism and the occult, religious fanaticism and astrology have become widespread in modern culture. Describing these trends, E. Toffler writes: “Pantheism, alternative medicine, sociobiology, anarchism, structuralism, neo-Marxism and new physics. Eastern mysticism, technophobia and technophobia, as well as thousands of other currents and contradictions permeate the protective screen of consciousness, and each of these phenomena has its priests or momentary gurus. An avalanche attack on science has begun" [ Toffler E. The Third Wave. - M.: AST. - 1999.].
The spread of nihilism, the revival of orthodox religions, the emergence of new religious and old mystical currents is truly a revolt against reason. A person loses faith in science, in the power of traditional culture. She is often helpless in the face of disaster. People are disappointed in the rationality of thinking, which is often unable to give clear answers to questions that arise in the process of informatization of society. The shock and stressful state of people is not the exception, but rather the rule.
The informatization of society has as its immediate consequence a further transformation of culture, the complication of its structure, content and functions. Along with the elite, folk and mass cultures, information culture begins to exist and rapidly develops. It, among other things, includes the so-called screen culture. The latter in its composition has a computer culture and the culture of the Internet. These elements of information culture are arranged among themselves according to the “matryoshka” principle: each of the previous forms of screen culture includes the subsequent form as one of its elements along with others.
As for modern Russia, the crisis of culture is caused not only by factors of global significance, but also by those specific political features and difficulties that Russia had on the path of democratic transformations. Quite rightly, Y. Levada writes that shifts in the sphere of culture are the result of the joint action of two crises that are different in nature: firstly, the global one, associated with the approval of the mechanisms of mass culture and the corresponding assessment of the mechanisms of elitist (more precisely, hierarchical) culture, and secondly , specifically “ours”, post-Soviet, that is, associated with the transition from a directive culture to an open and mass one” [ Levada Yu. From opinions to understanding.-M: MShPI. - 2000. 37]
The crisis of modern culture is caused not only by the rapid development of material culture in the form of information technology and, in connection with this, the gap that has arisen between the levels of material culture and the spiritual and intellectual development of people, political factors, but also certain social circumstances. The informatization of society, as noted above, leads to a change in the social and professional structures of society. These changes proceed faster than the spiritual and cultural evolution of people. “If social structures can change relatively quickly “before our eyes” (over years and decades), writes the well-known sociologist Y. Levada, then it often takes centuries to consolidate deep cultural changes”[ Levada Yu. From opinions to understanding.-M: MShPI. - 2000. C - 306]. Rapid "revolutionary" or "jumping" as they used to say - changes in the cultural parameters of society are too rare.
Noting that man is not the final link in the evolutionary chain on earth and crisis signs in the development of this species lead to his death, Yu.A. Fomin writes that “as a result of the ongoing evolutionary process, a new species begins to form, which will replace it. At the same time, the author claims that the process of human rebirth has already begun, is proceeding at an ever-increasing pace, and “practically on our planet, a new civilization is emerging, which is sharply different from the current one.”[ Fomin Yu.A. Humanity in the XXI century.- M: Syntheg.-2001 C - 55]
The crisis of culture cannot be identified with a catastrophe, since this crisis has a dialectical nature: rejecting the traditional cultural canons, the new culture absorbs all the previous achievements of the cultural development of society - ideals, norms, all progressive cultural values of the past. Even K. Jaspers wrote in his time that “those who claim that it is possible to temporarily cancel the old culture while the new one is being prepared are lying. It is impossible to forbid a person to continuously talk about his greatness and insignificance, just as it is impossible to forbid him to breathe. There is no culture without the legacy of the past, and we cannot and should not reject anything from our Western culture. Whatever the creations of the future, they will still carry the same secret - the secret of courage and freedom, nurtured by the courage of thousands of artists of all times and peoples. Jaspers K. The meaning and purpose of history. - M: Politizdat. - 1991. C - 375.]
